Irish Prison Service report

April 2017

Examination of the Sentence Management

of people serving Life Sentences

2

Contents Page

Executive Summary 3

1. Introduction 4

2. Demographics of People Serving Life Sentences 6

3. Life Sentences – Overview and History 10

4. Current Practice and Planned Developments 16

5. Areas where Improvements are Necessary 27

6. Recommended Model of Best Practice and General Recommendations 33

7. Appendices

a. Appendix 1 – Literature Review 42

b. Appendix 2 – A Guide to the Parole Board 45

Information for Prisoners

c. Appendix 3 - Model of service delivery between 51

the Psychology Service and the Probation Service

8. Bibliography 52

3

Executive summary

This report was prepared for, and at the request of, the Director General of the Irish Prison Service.

While he noted that there are many positive developments taking place in the Irish Prison Service with

regard to sentence management, he highlighted specific concerns as to the adequacy and clarity of

communication about sentence management involving people serving life sentences.

As a result a committee was established in May 2016 to consider the Director General’s concerns. The

Committee included representatives from the Irish Prison Service, the Probation Service and the Policy

Division of the Department of Justice and Equality.

In carrying out its analysis, the Committee met with people serving life sentences in both open and

closed prisons, prison Governors, staff and prison based services. External in-reach services and

stakeholders were also consulted.

Following analysis, the Committee identified two key areas where improvements are necessary.

Firstly, the need to embed the developing model of integrated sentence management with persons

serving life sentences from the beginning of the prison sentence. Secondly, the need to address the

concerns raised by those consulted with about the current functioning of the Parole Board process.

Recommendations to improve sentence management include early multi-disciplinary assessment;

annual Governor led reviews; recognition of the positive contribution of the family/significant other;

the adoption and expansion of an Independent Living Skills Unit model; the significance of the role of

Integrated Sentence Management; the need for greater coordination of interventions; the transition

to and role of Open Centres; the establishment of a specialised unit for people who are

institutionalised; and the need for an Open Centre in Dublin.

Recommendations in relation to the Parole Board focus on efficiencies and clarity and include that the

first review take place after 10 years rather than the present seven; that consideration should be given

to whether determinate sentences should be reviewed; the need to review the range and content of

reports provided to assist the Parole Board in their work; the need for clarity on the role of the Parole

Board in relation to Temporary Release; and the need to strengthen the role of Parole Board Liaison

Officers.

The report ends by recommending that a group be established to oversee implementation of the

Committee’s findings.

The report is focused on enhancing public safety by ensuring that, should the person serving a life

sentence be granted temporary release at some point in the future, he/she will have the life skills and

competency to reintegrate and become a law abiding member of our community.

While outside of the scope of this report, the authors remain cognisant of the impact of the person’s

offending behaviour and the need to ensure the victim’s voice is heard and respected.

4

1. Introduction

Sentence management is a critical part of ensuring that people in prison are engaged in making

positive use of their time there. It also motivates them to focus on self-development which may reduce

the likelihood of their reoffending. For those serving longer sentences, especially life imprisonment,

sentence planning takes on additional significance, as it provides a longer term structure to the

sentence which may assist in ameliorating the impact of an indeterminate sentence. Indeed, in an

external review of the IPS Psychology Service in 2015, Dr Frank Porporino noted1 that “a well-

functioning sentence planning and sentence management process is the glue that holds together any

rehabilitative oriented correctional process”.

As this report will clarify, there are many positive developments taking place in the Irish Prison Service

with regard to sentence management. However, over the course of his engagement with staff and

people in prison, the Director General of the Irish Prison Service has become concerned at the degree

of frustration being expressed by persons serving life sentences and by those who work with them.

In May 2016, as a result of the Director General’s concerns, a committee was formed to review this

area of work. The Committee included:

Mark Wilson, Deputy Director of Operations (chair), Irish Prison Service

Brian Dack, Assistant Director, The Probation Service

Governor Edward Mullins, Loughan House Open Centre, Irish Prison Service

Governor Patrick Kavanagh, Wheatfield Place of Detention, Irish Prison Service

Dr Emma Regan, Head of the Irish Prison Service Psychology Service

Noel Dowling, Principal Officer, Policy Division of the Department of Justice and Equality

The following terms of reference were set:

'To examine the system in place to manage the sentence of prisoners serving life imprisonment

and:

(i) identify current practice and planned developments in the sentence management of life

sentenced prisoners,

(ii) identify areas where difficulties arise and where improvements are necessary, and

(iii) to recommend a model of best practice which will enhance this system'.

In carrying out its analysis, the Committee met with people serving life sentences in both open and

closed prisons; prison Governors, representatives from various staff groups and services; the

Chairman of the Parole Board, the Director of PACE, and received a written submission from the Irish

Penal Reform Trust. A literature review was also undertaken.

The recommendations of the Committee support the current initiatives driving sentence

management. The recommendations propose to build on best practice identified in specific locations,

to improve communication, and to develop clarity amongst key partners. It is anticipated that this will

1 Porporino, F. (2015) " New Connections: Embedding Psychology Services and Practice in the Irish Prison Service.” Page

21

5

provide clarity to people serving life sentences and those working with them which will aid

engagement, focus interventions and thereby reduce the risks of future reoffending.

The Committee’s consideration of the issues involved was underpinned by the understanding that a

life sentence means life, and that a person serving a life sentence is released from that sentence only

by way of a reviewable temporary release by the Minister for Justice and Equality, usually on foot of

a recommendation by the Parole Board. This report therefore does not seek to define how long a

person serving a life sentence should serve, rather the report suggests ways in which the sentence

can be better managed.

6

2. Demographics of People Serving Life Sentences

2.1 Overview of the number of people serving life sentences

A breakdown of people serving life sentences (on 31st January 2017) is provided in Table 1.

Table 1: Breakdown of people serving life sentences

Current Status Female Male Total

Sentenced 10 339 349 Temporary Release-Reviewable 5 82 87 Hospital - Medical 0 4 4 On Remand 0 1 1 Temporary Release-Date to Date 0 2 2 Unlawfully At Large 0 3 3

Total 15 431 446

On the above date records show that 349 persons serving life imprisonment were in custody

with 4 in hospital (including under general and psychiatric care). Eighty-seven have been

released from custody on reviewable temporary release, eighty-two of whom are under the

supervision of the Probation Service. A further three were unlawfully at large.

2.2 Offences committed

Table 2 identifies that the majority of people serving a life sentence are doing so for the offence

of murder, with a range of other offences also identified. It must be remembered that the

person may also have been charged with additional offences, but not convicted of these due to

having been sentenced to life imprisonment.

Table 2: Sentenced Persons - Offence Description by Gender

Female Male Total

MURDER 10 321 331

RAPE 0 9 9

MANSLAUGHTER 0 3 3

ATTEMPTED MURDER BY ANY OTHER MEANS 0 2 2

AGGRAVATED SEXUAL ASSAULT 0 1 1

ATTEMPTED MURDER 0 1 1

RAPE UNDER SECTION 4 0 1 1

UNLAWFUL CARNAL KNOWLEDGE GIRL UNDER 15 YRS 0 1 1

Total 10 339 349

2.3 Gender and Length of time served

Table 2 identifies that there are 10 women serving life sentences. These are held in either the

Dóchas Centre (Mountjoy Campus) or in Limerick Prison.

Additionally, Table 3 demonstrates that 26% of people serving a life sentence has served over

15 years in prison, with over 4% having served over 30 years in custody.

7

Table 3: Sentenced Persons - Time Served in Years

Female Male Total

40 Years Plus 0 2 2

30 to

8

Table 5: Sentenced Persons - Establishment and Age

21 to < 25

25 to < 30

30 to < 40

40 to < 50

50 to < 60

60 Yrs+ Total

Arbour Hill Prison 0 1 12 12 6 8 39 Castlerea Prison 1 0 8 3 5 4 21 Cloverhill Remand Prison 1 0 0 0 1 0 2 Cork Prison 1 0 8 5 1 0 15 Limerick Prison (Female) 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 Limerick Prison (Male) 0 2 5 3 0 0 10 Loughan House Place Of Detention. 0 0 4 2 2 3 11 Midlands Prison 1 3 33 25 13 4 79 Mountjoy Prison (Female) 0 1 4 3 1 0 9 Mountjoy Prison (Male) 3 6 20 8 2 1 40 Portlaoise Prison 0 4 10 4 2 1 21 Shelton Abbey Place Of Detention. 0 0 2 3 5 4 14 Training Unit Place Of Detention. 0 0 3 9 1 1 14 Wheatfield Place of Detention 3 7 27 21 12 3 73

Total 10 24 136 98 52 29 349

2.6 Foreign Nationals

There were 43 foreign national persons serving life sentences in custody on 31st July.

Table 6: Sentenced Persons - Foreign Nationals by Gender

Nationality Female Male Total

Brazilian 0 5 5

British 1 7 8

Chinese 0 2 2

Czech 0 1 1

Dutch 0 1 1

Hungarian 0 1 1

Kosovon 0 1 1

Latvian 0 1 1

Lithuanian 1 1 2

Malaysian 0 1 1

Polish 1 6 7

Portuguese 0 1 1

Somalian 0 1 1

Turkish 0 1 1

Total 3 30 33

9

2.7 Groupings within overall population

Care must be taken in assumptions that people serving life sentences are a homogenous group.

Categories which need to be considered include females, those convicted of sex offences and

gang related offences. The nature of the offence, the person’s gender and his/her security

status may impact on the ability of the person to freely associate with others and may have

implications for any consideration of a transfer to an open centre. Indeed, at present, there is

no open centre or any equivalent for females in custody in the Irish prison estate.

2.8 Increase in custodial part of life sentence

It is worthwhile noting the gradual increase in the past 15 years in the number of people serving

life sentences and the increased percentage of this cohort as a proportion of the general prison

population. As illustrated in Table 7, the average time spent in custody for the four people

serving life sentences released in 2014 was 20 years (average increased due to a long period

served by one prisoner) and 17.5 years for the six people released in 2015.

2.9 Post release supervision

Eighty-two people serving life sentences are on reviewable temporary release in the community

under Probation supervision. Probation Officers support and supervise the person in the

community, supervision being one of a range of temporary release conditions. Supervision is

aided by a three way protocol agreed between the Irish Prison Service, Probation Service and

An Garda Síochána. Regular reports are provided by the Probation Service to the IPS providing

details of the person’s compliance with supervision.

Table 7: Average custodial years of life sentence and percentage of people serving life sentences in custody

Year People in custody

People serving life sentences: Committed

People serving life sentences: In custody

People serving life sentences in custody as a percentage of people in custody

People serving life sentences: Released

People serving life sentences: Recalled

Avg. years

2001 3,112 14 139 4.47% 5 1 15

2002 3,165 13 n/a n/a 3 1 11

2003 3,176 11 166 5.23% 1 0 14

2004 3,199 29 193 6.03% 1 1 19.5

2005 3,151 17 221 7.01% 2 1 14.5

2006 3,191 18 234 7.33% n/a 1 n/a

2007 3,321 23 239 7.2 % 6 0 15.5

2008 3,544 20 264 7.45% 2 3 15.5

2009 3,881 22 276 7.11% 5 1 17.5

2010 4,290 18 286 6.66% 6 1 18.25

2011 4,390 22 291 6.63% 5 1 20

2012 4,318 22 305 7.06% 4 1 22

2013 4,158 22 319 7.67% 4 1 17.5

10

3 Life Sentences – Overview and History

In this chapter, the following issues are dealt with:

abolition of the death sentence

the offences for which one can be sentenced to life imprisonment

how life sentences were reviewed prior to 1989

the operation of the Sentence Review Group (SRG) from 1989 to 2001

the establishment and operation of the current Parole Board system from 2001 to date

the Penal Policy Review Group report of 2014 and its recommendations relating to people

serving life sentences

recommendations of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman

or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) relating to people serving life sentences

position of people who are foreign nationals and serving a life sentence.

3.1 Abolition of death sentence

Although available as a sentencing option in Irish statute until 1964, the death penalty has not been

used in the state since 1954. The 1964 Criminal Justice Act abolished the death penalty for offences

other than treason, capital murder and certain military offences. It was finally removed from the

statute books in 1990 and from the Irish constitution in 2001.

3.2 Crimes for which a life sentence can be imposed

Life imprisonment can be imposed in Ireland for a broad range of offences in addition to the offence

of murder. These include treason, robbery, kidnapping, arson, hijacking, certain sexual offences and

genocide.

3.3 How life sentences were reviewed prior to 1989

Up to 1989, the only formal mechanism to determine if and when a person sentenced to life

imprisonment was to be released was through ‘Prison Reviews’. These reviews took place in each

prison and were attended by those who had knowledge of the progress being made by the person

serving the life sentence. Attending those meetings were the Governor, a Departmental

representative, prison staff, the Probation Officer, Chaplain, teachers and, if appropriate, a medical

officer and perhaps a psychiatrist.

3.4 The operation of the Sentence Review Group (SRG) from 1989 to 2001

The development of a formal mechanism was first considered in the Report of the Committee of

Inquiry into the Penal System published in 1985 commonly known as the ‘Whitaker Report’ after the

11

chairman of the inquiry committee, Dr. T.K. Whitaker. One of its recommendations (paragraph 2.25)

was as follows:

“Review of long and indeterminate sentences:

2.25 It is important that a regular and formal procedure exist for review of long or

indeterminate sentences. A first judicial review should take place after a prisoner has

completed five years of sentence, further judicial reviews to follow at intervals to be

determined by the review body. “

Chapter 7.12 of the Whitaker Report deals with the issue of long sentences or life sentences and notes

that, at the time, the average time served for a life sentence was between seven and ten years. The

report recommended a Sentence Review Committee be introduced, presided over by a Judge of the

High Court. It suggested that the first review take place five years into the person’s life sentence, to

be followed at intervals determined by the Committee. The Committee should take account of factors

such as the nature of the offence, behaviour while in prison, and the response to developmental

opportunities and so on. It also recommended that the Probation and Welfare Service should have

responsibility for co-ordinating the supply of information to the Committee.

The first non-statutory Sentence Review Group was established on 1st December, 1989. It was chaired

by Dr. T.K. Whitaker and had four ordinary members, including a representative of the

medical/psychiatric profession, a senior officer of the Probation Service, a representative of the

Department of Justice and a person with experience of the aftercare of discharged persons. The

Committee’s function was to advise the Minister on the discharge of his / her existing statutory powers

in relation to sentence administration, including the power to grant temporary release, subject to

conditions, either for definite or indefinite periods. All people who had served a term of seven years

or more of a current sentence, including those serving a life sentence (but excluding capital murder),

were to have their cases considered by the Committee. As with the previous review system, the final

decision lay with the Minister for Justice. In his speech announcing the establishment of the

Committee the then Minister said ‘reports prepared by the existing Prison Review Committee will in

fact form a very important part of the material to be considered by the new Group in relation to the

individual cases coming before it’. The Minister went on to say that the Chief Justice’ advice was that

the Chairman of the new Committee could not be a serving Judge as that might have the effect of

blurring the clear-cut constitutional separation of powers.

3.5 Report of Mr John Olden on the Management of the Sentences of Thomas Murray, Life

Sentenced Prisoner (2001)

The ‘Olden’ report was prepared by Mr Olden at the request of the then Minister for Justice following

the murder of an elderly woman, in County Galway, by a life sentenced prisoner while on a period of

temporary release from prison. In his recommendations Mr Olden identified the need for early

assessment on committal, actively managed sentence planning, formal record keeping and clear levels

of decision making. He also considered the concept of risk and dangerousness. In particular, Mr Olden

highlighted the need to tighten up on the procedures for the management of life sentenced prisoners.

12

3.6 The establishment and operation of the current Parole Board system from 2001 to date

As a result of the Olden report the SRG was replaced by the current Parole Board. Established in 2001,

and still in operation today, the Parole Board's principal function is to advise the Minister for Justice

and Equality in relation to the administration of long-term prison sentences.

The Parole Board reviews the cases of people sentenced to determinate sentences of eight years or

more. People serving sentences for certain offences, such as the murder of a member of the Garda

Síochána or the Prison Service in the course of their duty, are excluded from the process. The Board,

by way of recommendation to the Minister, advises of the persons progress in prison to date, the

degree to which the person has engaged with various therapeutic services, and how best to proceed

with the future administration of the sentence. The final decision regarding the recommendations of

the Parole Board lies with the Minister, who can accept them in their entirety, in part, or reject them.

In 2016 a Private Members Bill was introduced into the Oireachtas and, as of date of publication of

this report, is currently being considered.

3.7 Review of Penal Policy (Final Report, 2014)

The Penal Policy Review Group (PPRG) was established in September 2012 in line with the

recommendations of the Thornton Hall Project Review Group. The Group was tasked with carrying out

a strategic review of penal policy, taking into account the relevant work already carried out in this

jurisdiction and elsewhere, the rights of those convicted of crimes, the perspective of those who are

victims of crime, and the interests of society in general. The Report contains 41 recommendations but

the key ones which relate directly and indirectly to people serving life sentences can be summarised

as follows:

greater emphasis, if necessary through legislation, on a whole-of-Government approach

promoting inter-agency cooperation in the management and rehabilitation of people in

prison.

extension of restorative justice programmes.

inter-agency approach to reduce the numbers of people on protection.

increased use of open prisons and an additional open prison for the Dublin area.

greater involvement of people in the management of their prison sentences. The PPRG

recognised that Integrated Sentence Management (ISM) is the appropriate tool for the

management of sentences which should ensure that all people in prison are kept informed of

the various programmes available to them.

gender appropriate strategies to be adopted in the management of females who offend and

females in prison, with a greater focus on step down facilities, supported accommodation,

and the use of more community based open conditions.

all criminal justice agencies working together to promote contact between people in prison

and their children and other family members, and that conditions for visits are sensitive to the

needs of children.

13

all people who are convicted of offences must have the opportunity to avail of any necessary

services or programmes to aid their rehabilitation and reintegration with particular emphasis

on providing appropriate social services such as accommodation, education and training and

addiction treatment.

provision of suitable accommodation, including step down facilities to ease the re-integration

of people leaving prison.

a consistent and transparent approach to the use of open prisons prior to release.

greater use of structured temporary release, and a consistent and transparent application of

remission procedures leading to one third off the person’s sentence.

the Parole Board should be established on a statutory footing with the power to make

decisions.

3.8 European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or

Punishment (CPT)

The CPT organises visits to places of detention in order to assess how persons deprived of their liberty

are treated. After each visit, the CPT sends a detailed report to the State concerned. This report

includes the CPT’s findings, recommendations, comments and requests for information.

The CPT requests that jurisdictions’ treatment of people serving life sentences is in accordance with

the person’s individual risk, both in custody and to the outside community, and not simply in response

to the sentence which has been imposed. The CPT stresses that all possible efforts should be made

to provide people serving life sentences with a regime tailored to their needs. This will:

help them reduce the level of risk they pose

minimise the damage that indeterminate sentences necessarily cause

keep them in touch with the outside world

offer them the possibility of release into the community under licence and ensure that

release can be safely granted in the majority of cases

The CPT also recommends that procedures should be put in place to allow for a review of the sentence.

They state that having a purely formal possibility to apply for release after a certain amount of time is

not sufficient; it must be ensured, notably through the way people serving life sentences are treated,

that this possibility is real and effective.

3.9 Position of foreign nationals serving life sentences

In meeting with people serving life sentences, the position of those foreign nationals serving life

sentences was raised. There were two principal concerns including:

i. that upon release, such people would be deported back to their country of origin where

they would be in put into danger

14

ii. that they should be allowed serve their sentences in their country of origin where they

would not be as culturally isolated as they are in Ireland.

3.10 Deportation

In relation to the points raised at paragraph 3.8i above, this report does not seek to examine the

issue of the immigration status of foreign national persons in Irish prisons. The Committee does

however note that a deportation order made by the Minister in respect of a person in prison,

irrespective of whether or not he / she has had a claim for asylum considered, is subject to the

overarching principle of ‘non refoulement’, as contained in Section 5 of the Refugee Act 1996 (as

amended). This means that no person shall be expelled from the State or returned in any manner

whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where, in the opinion of the Minister, the life or freedom of

that person would be threatened on account of his or her race, religion, nationality, membership of

a particular social group or political opinion or where he or she is likely to be subject to a serious

assault (including a serious assault of a sexual nature.

The position of the Minister in relation to their powers to deport non-national persons in prison is

set out in section 24(2)(a) and (b) of the Prisons Act 2015. This allows the Minister to release a non-

national person serving a determinate sentence for the purposes of deportation subject to the

person concerned having less than one year left of his / her sentence to serve, taking account of any

remission earned by him / her.

The 2015 Act does not specifically provide for people serving a life sentence. As explained elsewhere

in this report, the Criminal Justice Act 1960 as amended by the Criminal Justice (Temporary Release

of Prisoners) Act 2003 grants the Minister the power to release people serving a life sentence on a

‘reviewable temporary release’ basis. This means that a person serving a life sentence will be given a

specified term of release, sometimes with conditions, and this is continually reviewed by the IPS who

decide whether to grant or refuse further periods of temporary release.

In practice, a person serving a life sentence who is on temporary release of this nature is unlikely ever

to be recalled or refused additional periods of temporary release unless there has been a breach of

conditions. However, there is a legal question as to a non-national life sentence prisoner granted

‘reviewable temporary release’ can be removed from the State given that they must remain amenable

to supervision and recall by the Minister during the currency of the temporary release. This legal issue

is currently being examined.

3.11 Serving sentences in one’s country of origin

Currently, the transfer of prisoners between jurisdictions is governed by the Transfer of Sentenced

Persons Acts, 1995 and 1997 – commonly called TOSP. This legislation was enacted to give effect to

the Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons made in Strasbourg on 21st March 1983. The

Convention recognises that international co-operation in the field of criminal law should further the

ends of justice and social rehabilitation of people in prison, and that the aims of the Convention can

best be achieved by having them transferred to serve their sentences in their own countries.

Nonetheless, neither the Convention internationally nor the two Acts domestically impose an

obligation on the Minister to consent to the transfer of an Irish person in prison abroad to serve

their

15

sentence in this jurisdiction in all cases and this also applies to transfers of non-nationals here

seeking a transfer to their country of origin. Transfers under TOSP are essentially individual trilateral

agreements between the person in prison, the sentencing State and the receiving State.

The Department of Justice and Equality is considering the implications, both legal and

administrative, of the judgement of the Irish Supreme Court (by a majority of 4 to 3) delivered on

12th July 2016 in the case of “Fintan O'Farrell, Declan Rafferty and Michael McDonald” relating to

TOSP legislation. The Court dismissed an appeal by the State against orders of the High Court

directing the release of the prisoners concerned. The ruling dealt with the issue of differing

sentencing regimes between Ireland and the UK in relation to determinate sentences and, pending

further legal consideration, it is believed that people serving life sentences are not affected by the

ruling. Finally, there exists a Council Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA of 27 November 2008 on

the application of the principle of mutual recognition to judgments in criminal matters imposing

custodial sentences or measures involving deprivation of liberty for the purpose of their

enforcement in the European Union. This Framework Decision has not yet been transposed into Irish

legislation and is currently being considered within the Department.

16

4 Current Practice and Planned Developments

In this chapter, the following areas are considered:

Established models supporting Sentence Management

Emerging models of Sentence Management

The Parole Board process

Roles of Key Sections/Services

As can be seen from Chapter Two, people serving life sentences are held in all of the prisons

throughout the Irish Prison Service estate. People are afforded the opportunity to engage with the

regime on offer within that respective prison such as work and training, education and those services

which can assist them to consider their offending (Psychology or Probation Service), their addictions

and their general health requirements. People in prison can have visits or telephone calls with their

family and friends and they can associate with other people in prison, develop, maintain and cease

relationships as they would in a life outside of prison.

4.1 Established Models Supporting Sentence Management

For the purpose of understanding the recommendations of this report, it is important to identify the

difference between the regime of a closed prison and that of an open prison. There are ten closed

prisons, two open prisons and one semi-open prison within the Irish Prison Service estate managing a

total population of approximately 3,700 persons.

4.1.1 Closed Prisons

Most people in prison are detained in closed prisons. Each has a structured daily routine which

is detailed in Table 8 below.

Table 8: Closed prison daily regime:

Time Action Purpose

8.15 Unlock Collect breakfast

8.30 Return to cell -

9.15 Unlock Attend activities

12.15 Collect lunch

12.30 Return to cell -

2.05 Unlock Attend Activities

4.15 Collect evening meal

4.30 Return to cell -

5.15 Unlock Evening Recreation

7.30 Return to cell -

17

As can be seen, out-of-cell time can be limited. Access to services, visits, phone calls etc. are

all managed during the out-of-cell time. The models of sentence management, range of

services available and current/planned developments as described later in this chapter

provide an insight into a typical day lead by someone in prison.

4.1.2 Open and Semi-Open Prisons

Open Centres, by their description, provide a greater degree of freedom for people in prison.

There are two Open Centres in the Prison Service estate: Loughan House (Co. Cavan) and

Shelton Abbey (Co. Wicklow), providing accommodation for 265 males in total. Open Centres

provide an environment of reduced security which builds trust and empowers people in

prison. There are no perimeter walls. The regime is more relaxed and is the ideal environment

for people preparing for release. Open Centres promote resocialisation, normalisation and

progression.

Open Centres provide an independent living environment where all people serving life

sentences are provided with a single room. People are not locked into their rooms and the

responsibility is on the individual residing there to report at number check times. Communal

dining provides normality at meal times and allows people the opportunity to recreate and

associate freely with each other. Mobile phones are also provided to improve family contact.

The visiting areas are more family friendly and allow people greater access to family and

friends.

People in Open Centres may also avail of educational trips and participate in external

community projects such as tidy towns and community restoration projects. The

work/training areas provide opportunities for people to further develop skills and prepare for

employment upon release. All people have access to career guidance and Training and

Employment Officer Services.

4.1.3 The Grove (Castlerea Prison)

The Grove is a semi-open area of Castlerea Prison in Roscommon and accommodates 55

people who are on an enhanced regime. All are engaged in work and training, and

accreditation is achievable. Various workshops include woodwork, concrete, waste

management and catering. School activity also plays a part with a number of joint projects

between work and training planned. This area is unique to the prison service in that people

held in the main prison block have an identifiable aim within that prison setting. People

resident in the Grove can also be considered for transfer to an open prison as part of their

sentence management.

4.1.4 Harristown House (Castlerea Prison)

Harristown House, constructed circa 1920, was formerly a residence for nurses employed at

St Patrick’s Psychiatric Hospital, which is now the site of Castlerea Prison. The house is located

directly adjacent to the prison, however it is outside the perimeter wall. It is used by the IPS

as a low security accommodation unit for a maximum of 15 people. People are located there

as part of a scheme to encourage good behaviour and trustworthiness. Harristown House

18

encourages an ethos of independent and communal living and offers a transition between

custody and community/family life. There are no prison staff posted in the house.

4.1.5 The Training Unit (Mountjoy Prison)

The Training Unit is a semi-open prison in Dublin which has traditionally been used to facilitate

structured release programmes for people serving longer prison sentences. In recent years it

has been used more frequently to support the management of the large numbers of people

being committed into Mountjoy Prison. At the time of writing, the Tánaiste has given her

approval to a plan to re-purpose the Training Unit as a centre for older prisoners.

4.1.6 Independent Living Skills Unit (ILSU) - Wheatfield Prison

Wheatfield Prison has recently opened an Independent Living Skills Unit which offers a small

number of people serving life sentences the opportunity to live more independently while in

a closed prison (relative to others in prison). The unit aims to increase the potential for people

serving life sentences to develop life skills which will be necessary should they be deemed

suitable for temporary release at a later point in their sentence.

The Unit operates as a community. Weekly meetings will be held on the Unit with all residents

and the Unit Officer attending. The meetings are facilitated by a Psychologist. The agenda is

provided to Psychology the day before the meeting by the Residents’ Appointed Chairperson.

This idea facilitates cooperation among the residents. Issues of conflict can be dealt with safely

at the meeting and any ideas/requests for the Unit are discussed. The Governor attends

weekly meetings every 3-4 weeks.

Communal dining is a requisite among the residents. Laundry facilities are available. In-cell

phones are available to maintain family relationships with some degree of privacy. The Unit is

unlocked at present from 8.00am to 7.30pm. Residents are responsible for the preparation

and cooking of meals at weekends. Residents agree on menus during the week with a weekly

shopping budget provided by the Governor. Once per week the Unit Officer and a resident go

to a local supermarket to purchase the agreed supplies for the weekend meals.

Residents on the Unit will continue to engage at all times with the Wheatfield Programme for

People Serving Life Sentences i.e. annual sentence planning, Parole Board Liaisons, working in

less secure settings and continued positive engagement with all relevant services. Prior to

transfer to an Open Centre (if approved by the Tánaiste) residents will be facilitated in visiting

an Open Centre, with an Independent Living Skills Unit (ILSU) Officer and Probation Officer,

and meet with Open Centre management and services.

4.1.7 Incentivised Regimes (IR)

The Incentivised Regimes model is essentially a system for rewarding people in prison for

engagement and positive behaviour. People who attend structured training, education and

various prison employment projects such as cleaning, catering and laundry may be rewarded,

in prescribed ways, with additional gratuity, extra visits and phone calls. Upon committal,

people are assigned to the ‘basic’ IR category and over a period of eight weeks can, through

positive behaviour and engagement, progress through to ‘standard’ regime and finally to

‘enhanced’ regime. All people serving life sentences are eligible to participate in the IR scheme

19

and reaching the enhanced level is an important component of their sentence plan. The

current regime levels for persons serving life sentences are included in the table below:

Establishment Name Basic Standard Enhanced Total

Arbour Hill Prison 0 1 38 39

Castlerea Prison 0 2 19 21

Cloverhill Remand Prison 0 0 2 2

Cork Prison 0 1 14 15

Limerick Prison (Female) 0 0 1 1

Limerick Prison (Male) 0 3 7 10

Loughan House Place Of Detention 0 0 11 11

Midlands Prison 1 15 63 79

Mountjoy Prison (Female) 0 0 9 9

Mountjoy Prison (Male) 5 6 29 40

Portlaoise Prison 2 8 11 21

Shelton Abbey Place Of Detention 0 0 14 14

Training Unit Place Of Detention 0 1 13 14

Wheatfield Place of Detention 2 11 60 73

Total 10 48 291 349

Regime level of persons serving life imprisonment – 31st January 2017

4.1.8 Integrated Sentence Management (ISM)

Integrated Sentence Management was introduced to the IPS in 2011. It is a model which aims

to assess each person’s risks and needs and then support the development of a Personal

Implementation Plan (PIP). Prison Officers were assigned to manage the processes, with the

Care and Rehabilitation Directorate having oversight of its governance, training and

development. There are currently 24 ISM staff working across the estate. Their specific role

is to meet with people on their committal to prison and refer people to the various services

in each prison as appropriate to their needs.

This report notes that the ISM process has not progressed as well as was expected. Over the

years, additional tasks have been included in the ISM role including supporting the Community

Return Scheme, screening people convicted of sexual violence for suitability for the Building

20

Better Lives Programme, amongst other tasks. Furthermore, ISM staff have faced repeated

redeployment to their Prison Officer role to cover staff shortages. Finally, ISM staff are not

trained to complete formal strengths, needs and risk assessments at the beginning of a

person’s sentence which would inform their PIP. The role of the ISM officer has struggled to

gain traction due to the above competing tasks and this has reduced their capacity to focus

on people serving longer term and life sentences who require sentence management support.

Decisions remain to be made in relation to how ISM officers support people serving life

sentences on committal and which service (Psychology or Probation Service) might complete

a formal risk assessment to inform their sentence management.

4.1.9 Parole Board Process:

As outlined in the previous chapter, the Parole Board reviews people serving longer sentences,

including life sentences, and makes recommendations to the Minister to aid sentence

planning. A person serving a life sentence will be reviewed after serving eight years. Each year,

the Irish Prison Service refers those persons whose sentence and time served makes them

eligible to be reviewed. At the time of writing, the Parole Board have a caseload of 352 cases

and review approximately 100 cases per year. In 2015, 76 new referrals were identified. The

Parole Board invited each to participate. Forty-two accepted the invitation and 34 declined.

Of those who declined, 32 were serving determinate sentences.

The following 7-step model aims to clarify the process involved:

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

IPS informs Minister that person is eligible for parole process

Parole Board secretariat invites person to engage in process.

Once a person accepts invitation, secretariat seeks reports from services engaged with that person - Garda, Prison Review Committee, Probation and Psychology and compile dossier

Dossier given to person serving life sentences for review

Two members of Parole Board interview person serving life sentences and submit report to secretariat

Parole Board assesses persons dossier at its monthly meetings and submits its recommendations to the Minister

Minster’s decision is conveyed to the Governor and the person serving the life sentence

21

4.2 Emerging Models of Sentence Management for People Serving Life Sentences

In some prisons, progression has been made in engaging people serving life sentences and providing

structure to their sentence management. Wheatfield Prison provides a good example of this:

The Programme for people serving life sentences in Wheatfield Place of Detention consists of the

following:

4.2.1 Sentence Planning: All people serving life sentences have a sentence planning meeting

once a year. This meeting is attended by the person serving the life sentence, the Governor,

and a representative of all relevant services in Wheatfield prison. The person’s sentence

progression is discussed and advice or service specific information is given. The clear message

at all times is that this plan is the individual’s plan and should be led by them. Following each

meeting, the ISM Officer assigned to this process meets with the individual and formally

develops the plan for the following 12 months. The ISM Officer will liaise with the individual

throughout the year to check in on progress. Wheatfield is currently on year two of this

process.

4.2.2 Quarterly Meetings: The Governor invites all people serving life sentences to meet each

quarter as a group to discuss any issues pertinent to them.

4.2.3 Neutral Venue Visits /Section 39 applications: A number of people serving life

sentences have Parole Board recommendations for ‘neutral venue visits’ i.e. visits with their

family outside of the prison to aid resocialisation and reintegration. The Governor can also

apply to IPS Operations Directorate for family visits by way of a Section 39 application when

no Parole Board recommendation is in place. Section 39 of the Prisons Act, 2007 provides that

the Minister may, on compassionate grounds or for the purposes of assessing a person’s

suitability for early release or facilitating his re-integration into society, order that he be taken

to a specified person or place within the State for a specified purpose during a specified period

and return at the end of that period. In practice, this is operated at prison Governor level.

4.2.4 Parole Board Liaison: Wheatfield has a nominated staff member who acts as the Parole

Board Liaison. The Liaison Officer makes him/herself available on the last Friday of the month

in the Education Unit. If a person serving a life sentence has a personal question for the Parole

Board, the Liaison Office will contact the Parole Board and reply to the person within two to

three days.

4.2.5 Parole Board Reviews: When notification is received that a person serving a life

sentence has a Parole Board Review, the Governor will meet with that person and discuss the

review prior to his meeting. The Governor holds this meeting in the room in which the Review

is to take place to allow the person become familiar with it and reduce his anxiety.

22

4.3 Roles of Key Sections/Services in the Management of People Serving Life Sentences

4.3.1 Policy Division

Prisons and Probation Policy Division maintains Departmental and Ministerial oversight of IPS

and Probation Service policy and operational procedures. In relation to people who are

serving life sentences, Prisons Policy is directly involved through nominating a senior official

who sits on the Parole Board to represent the Minister. When recommendations are made

by the Parole Board, they are forwarded to Prisons Policy for onward transmission to the

Minister for consideration. The officer from Prisons Policy who sits on the Parole Board is not

involved after the Board makes its recommendation to the Minister. Following consideration,

Prisons Policy writes to the person serving a life sentence with final recommendations

regarding their sentence planning following the Parole Board process.

4.3.2 Operations Directorate

The Operations Directorate of the Irish Prison Service is responsible for the sentence

management of all persons in custody, including those serving life sentences. As part of the

Parole Board process it prepares Prison Review Committee reports and has responsibility to

oversee the implementation of Ministerial decision follow Parole Board reviews, including

possible temporary release programmes. The Directorate also has responsibility for the Irish

Prison Service’s Victim Liaison Service.

a) The Prison Review Committee (PRC):

The Operations Assistant Principal will request a meeting of the PRC, which generally

comprises the Prison Governor, Probation Service, IPS Psychology Service, Education,

Addiction Counsellor, Chaplaincy, Health Care, Training and Employment, Resettlement, ISM,

other staff from disciplines e.g. Industrial Supervisor or Class Officer if necessary.

The Committee will meet and review the person’s progress. This review will take the form of

a discussion and will cover the following:

behaviour in the prison

how he/she occupies their time, e.g. employment, education etc.

he/she is engaging with the Probation/Psychology/Addiction Counselling/other services

and if so, to what extent

has he/she complied with the Minister’s decision following the last Parole Board review

(if relevant)

any other general information.

It is worth noting that the PRC does not have access to the full range of information available

to the Parole Board e.g. Medical/Psychiatric reports, Psychology or Probation reports. The

Committee will agree a recommendation to the Parole Board. Following the PRC meeting, the

Assistant Principal will prepare a report of the meeting for the Parole Board containing details

of the person’s sentence, details of the crime and previous convictions, their progress as

outlined at the meeting, family support and the recommendations of the PRC. The draft

report is circulated to all those who attended the meeting for review. The final signed and

dated copy of the report is sent to the Parole Board Secretariat by email.

23

b) Sentence Management:

The Minister's decision arising from the Parole Board process is sent by the Department’s

Prisons Policy Division to the Operations Directorate, and the Governor for forwarding to the

relevant person in prison. All people in prison who have taken part in the Parole Board

process have their cases reviewed periodically. This enables stakeholders to ascertain if the

person is complying with the decisions made by the Minister. If the individual is not

complying, it is better that this is identified as soon as possible. It may be the case that the

necessary resources are not available and in this situation, alternatives should be considered,

up to, and including transfer to another prison. If there is no resource issue, i.e. if the person

in prison simply does not engage as envisaged in the Minister's decision, the Governor of the

prison will discuss the Ministerial decision with the individual and encourage him / her to

engage.

c) Temporary Release (TR):

Applications are regularly received by the Operations Directorate for periods of Temporary

Release (TR). In the case of people involved in the Parole Board process, approval in general

terms is granted initially by the Minister, following a Parole Board review. A decision in

relation to a specific period of temporary release can be taken at an appropriate level in the

Operations Directorate thereafter, provided that the request falls in line with the general

approval already granted by the Minister. Temporary release for family reasons must also be

approved by the Minister, following the Parole Board review. People serving long sentences

who are nearing the end of their sentences are often approved a programme of structured

releases to participate in work/training/education in the community. Such programmes are

generally more available in the Training Unit, Shelton Abbey or Loughan House. They

generally commence when the person has been in the semi-open/open prison for a period of

time, which will be determined by the Minister following the Parole Board review of the

case. Initial release for work/training/education will generally be to a highly supervised

project such as PACE. People may eventually move on to other projects, including C.E.

schemes, after a time, if approved by the Minister.

d) Victim Liaison

The IPS has a long established and well regarded service for victims of crime. As of 10th April

2017 there were 306 prisoners with active victim liaison cases, whereby a victim or victims

have registered their personal details so that they may be kept informed of significant

developments involving the person in custody. These developments include any form of TR,

court appearances, hospital appointments, Parole Board Review meetings and eventual

release. Of the 306 total, 153 cases (50%) involve a person serving a life sentence in custody

or released on licence under the supervision of the Probation Service in the community.

e) Current Practice for Parole Board cases with a victim flag

As people serving life sentences have an opportunity to have their cases considered by the

Parole Board, it is the policy of the Victim Liaison Service to invite registered victims or their

families to make a submission to the Parole Board process for that person. Registered victims

are then advised that should they make a submission it is the policy of the Parole Board to

24

disclose their submission to the person in prison as part of the Parole Board dossier. Personal

details of the submitter are not disclosed. The vast majority of victims or the victim’s family

do make submissions at some stage during the process of the various reviews. Submissions

are more likely to be made in the first number of review. However, many victim’s families still

make submissions throughout the process.

4.3.3 Psychology Service

The IPS Psychology Service has a dual role in its work with people serving life sentences. At

any point in an individual’s sentence they can be referred or self-refer to the service in relation

to their mental health. Historically, both the Psychology Service and Probation Service wrote

individual Parole Board reports about any one person serving a life sentence for their

upcoming hearing. This often led to duplication of information. Therefore, the Parole Board

and both services came to an agreement that one will take a ‘lead role’ and write a single

Parole Board report for an upcoming Parole hearing.

Psychologists tend to engage in offence focused work with people serving life sentences after

their first Parole hearing if this is recommended, if the individual is referred by another service,

or if the individual self-refers. Following offence focused work, the Psychology Service typically

writes the second and sometimes third Parole Board report and beyond as required.

Depending on the prison, people serving life sentences would either engage in their offence

focused work individually, in group (e.g. the Building Better Lives Programme) or a

combination of both. This dual role allows for a psychological perspective to be applied to the

overall sentence management of those serving life sentences.

In addition to the above, different prisons have offered different interventions, depending on

resources and clinician’s specialism.

Both the Midlands and Mountjoy Prisons’ Psychology Services allocate each person

serving a life sentence to one Psychologist who meets with the individual on a six monthly

basis (approx.) from their committal in order to provide sentence management support

and assess their mental health.

Wheatfield Psychology Service supports people by managing their life sentences through

the prison’s multidisciplinary meetings chaired by the Governor. The Psychology Service

is also involved in the planning, staff training and support of the new Independent Living

Skills Unit which is being established in Wheatfield prison.

The Psychology Service provides limited indirect support to people serving life sentences

in Loughan House and soon, Shelton Abbey through consultation to the multidisciplinary

team. The Service is also available to Open Centres in situations of crisis e.g. episodes of

self-harm or for transitional support to Open Centres.

Planned developments include:

The Psychology Service is currently renewing its referral procedures to ensure consistent,

estate wide services to people in custody, including those serving life sentences. Before

25

this policy is finalised, the service awaits the outcome of the current report to inform

further decisions about interventions with people serving life sentences.

The Psychology Service will engage with the Probation Service to further clarify each

service’s role with people serving life sentences.

The Psychology Service is increasing the availability of group based violence programmes.

In 2016 this will be extended to Cork and Castlerea prisons.

Recruitment of Assistant Psychologists in August 2016 will increase the service’s capacity

to provide outreach and primary care mental health work, including where deemed

appropriate by a supervisor, to those serving life sentences.

4.3.4 Probation Service

The Probation Service provides a threefold service to people serving life sentences during the

custodial part of their life sentence:

1. Carrying out risk assessments

2. Providing reports for the Parole Board

3. Implementing various initiatives including the ‘Living with Life’, ‘Choice and

Challenge’ and the ‘Preparation for Integration Group’ programmes.

As with other services, the level of input and various additional initiatives tend to vary across

the prison estate depending on level of resources. As discussed in the Psychology Service

section, planned developments include engagement between both services to further clarify

each service’s role with people serving life sentences.

Should a person serving a life sentence be approved to return to community on temporary

release, they will be supervised by the Probation Service for the remainder of their life.

Supervision of persons serving life sentences differs from other types of supervision because

of the nature of the offence, the indeterminate term of supervision, varying requirements and

the high level of sensitivity and responsibility involved. Work is usually characterised by high

levels of compliance on the part of the person serving the life sentence and close supervision

sustained over many years. The vast majority of people serving life sentences on TR

supervision achieve a level stability in their lives after release and value the contribution of

their supervising Probation Officer. A three-way protocol between the IPS, Probation Service

and An Garda Síochána supports effective post-release supervision.

4.3.5 Work, Training and Education

Significant resources are invested in education and work training programmes to upskill

people in prison. This will ultimately assist them in obtaining further training or employment

upon release. Education is available in all prisons and is provided through local Education

Training Boards with traditional academic subjects and bespoke educational programmes

available. People serving life sentences are encouraged to partake in education and many

achieve success in Junior and Leaving Certificate subjects as well as QQI awards. Many people

sent to prison did not have positive experiences in education as children and both appreciate

and enjoy the educational experience as adults.

26

Work-training opportunities are also available in all institutions with a combination of hard

and soft skills available. Training programmes are certified through QQI and City and Guilds,

and new training initiatives are regularly introduced to keep up with labour market trends and

demands. People serving life sentences are encouraged to partake in all work-training

programmes as well as traditional prison employment such as catering, laundry and cleaning

duties.

4.3.6 Healthcare / Psychiatry

As with any individual committed to custody, healthcare assess on committal and any health

related needs are identified and followed up as required throughout the individual’s sentence.

Healthcare is available throughout the person’s sentence. In-reach psychiatric services are

primarily provided by the National Forensic Mental Health Service which accepts referrals

through the prison GP. At present however, some prisons do not have ready access to

psychiatric services e.g. Castlerea prison. Individuals requiring psychiatric input in these

situations are transferred to other prisons, a situation that is far from ideal.

4.3.7 Addiction Services

Merchants Quay Ireland (MQI) provide addiction services across the IPS estate including to

people serving life sentences. MQI counsellors generally works through a harm reduction

model. MQI accept referrals from all usual sources e.g. Healthcare, Psychology, Probation,

prison staff and self-referral. Intervention is provided both individually and in groups. As with

many other intervention services, waiting lists tend to be long, and interventions on offer are

different in different prisons.

4.3.8 Resettlement of people serving life sentences.

The Irish Association for the Social Reintegration of Offenders (IASIO) has two operational

services in the IPS. The Gate Service, a vocational resettlement service, explores what the

person wants and is able to do, the barriers to this and organises ‘placements’, or incremental

steps, towards achieving that end. The second, the Resettlement Service, is a primary needs

resettlement service that develops with the person a realistic plan that includes the housing,

welfare, medical and social aspects of a stable return to their original community or a new

one.

IASIO have highlighted that the complications inherent in every life sentence case i.e. lack of

a release date made it more complicated to plan for the person’s future.

4.3.9 Chaplaincy Service

The IPS employs Chaplains to provide pastoral, spiritual, emotional and practical support to

those people in custody, and their families who wish to avail of the service. Chaplains make a

significant contribution as part of the multidisciplinary team. Chaplains can offer a supportive

presence as people serving life sentences and their families face the ongoing challenges

associated with an indeterminate sentence, and during times of crisis such as coping with

illness and family bereavements.

This is not a full listing of all services available. Many other services and visiting agencies

engage with people serving life sentences.

27

5 Areas where Improvements are Necessary

5.1 Problems with engagement in the early part of a life sentence

The IPS typically defines the early years of a life sentence as the time between sentencing and the first

Parole Board hearing - which is scheduled for the seventh year of the sentence (which includes any

remand time). Feedback from those serving life sentences, and prison and external services providing

safe custody, care and rehabilitation indicates that as a whole, the early years of a life sentence in

custody are not used effectively. The factors involved are multi-faceted but can be broadly

summarised as a result of the individual, the prison culture and current service provision.

5.1.1 Problems for the individual

On being sentenced to life in prison, the people interviewed by the Committee reported a

very normal stress or grief reaction to the notion of the sentence itself, negative media

coverage, the reaction of family and friends including the possibility of rejection, being away

from loved ones, and getting accustomed to the experience of prison routine and culture.

Some described a long period of remand and a sense of the ‘unknown’ during that time. In

addition, some people described what could be defined as post traumatic symptoms following

the offence, addiction, or other factors which may be associated with the offence. Some

people reported turning to unhelpful coping strategies in order to manage, for example, by

using drugs, alcohol, ‘saving face’ through violence, or spending time with unhelpful peer

influences.

5.1.2 Problems with prison culture

There appears to be an unwritten narrative within current prison culture, particularly amongst

those serving life sentences, that behaviour and engagement with rehabilitative services in

the first seven years of a life sentence are of little consequence and therefore of little point.

Only in the year leading up to the first Parole Board hearing do people serving life sentences

appear to become animated about the need to engage with the services.

5.1.3 Problems with current service provision

Current service provision may also unwittingly impact on the early years of a life sentence.

Whilst people serving life sentences have access to education, work and training from early

on in their sentence if they choose to, typically, it is only in the year prior to the first Parole

Board hearing that services providing professional risk assessments (Probation Service and IPS

Psychology Service) engage people in the risk assessment process to inform Parole Board

decisions. Furthermore, the risk assessment is typically used to inform Parole Board

recommendations specifically, rather than to outline a more holistic sentence management

plan. There are occasions where someone serving a life sentence will engage with services

earlier than this: for example, the person may engage therapeutically with the Psychology

Service for mental health difficulties, the Addiction Service if struggling with addiction, or with

the ‘Living with Life’ psychoeducation programme by the Probation Service. However, this

engagement is ad hoc across the estate and it does not inform a structured and holistic

sentence management plan from committal.

28

Effective management of the early part of a life sentence will require alignment with the

current ISM Policy (currently in draft form). This draft policy highlights the need for early

assessment of strengths, needs and risks to inform a Personal Implementation Plan. This PIP

requires collaboration between IPS Services, various in-reach services and the person serving

the life sentence to develop a holistic approach to managing the first years of a life sentence

and where strengths, risks and needs are intervened with from the beginning of the person’s

sentence.

As outlined earlier, consideration needs to be given to the differences and/or lack of

consistency between services available across prisons of a similar type.

5.1.4 Need for a model of assessment and intervention by Psychology and Probation

Services

Both the Probation Service and Psychology Service engage with persons serving life sentences

to provide professional risk assessments. There is a general view that this leads to duplication

of effort. In response, the IPS Psychology Service and the Probation Service have recently

agreed a model of service with people serving life sentences.

From 1st April 2017, any person sentenced to life imprisonment, will be referred to the Senior

Psychologist and Senior Probation Officer2 by the ISM Officer. Following this, an agreed model

of service provides a clear pathway for people serving life sentences with a focus on early

strengths, needs and risk assessment, which will inform sentence management. The model of

service also provides a clear division of roles and responsibilities for both services when

engaging with people serving life sentences (see appendix 3).

5.1.5 Mental Health of Prisoners

An issue raised with the Committee was the mental health of life sentence prisoners and of

prisoners generally. Notwithstanding recommendations made at section 6.3, the Committee

felt that the broader issue was outside its remit. Nonetheless, it felt that this report should

acknowledge the ongoing work of “Interdepartmental Group to examine the issue of people

with mental illness coming into contact with the criminal justice system”. This involves

officials from the HSE, Department of Health, Central Mental Hospital, the IPS and the

Department of Justice and equality. In September, 2016 that Group published it the First

Interim which explores a person's first interaction with the criminal justice system (i.e. first

arrest) right up until the point when he or she is sentenced to imprisonment by the Court.

What happens thereafter will be the subject of the next report of the Group.

2 or Staff Grade Psychologist / Probation Officer where there is no Senior located in that prison

29

5.2 Absence of regular structured contact with the prison

It is in the interest of people serving life sentences and society at large that services on offer in the

prison are fully engaged with. The efficacy of this contact can only be realised if engagement occurs

in a regular, structured way. In the absence of a structured process a person’s sentence progression

and motivation can be haphazard and at worst stagnant.

The ideal structure for the IPS is that the ISM Officers work closely with the person serving a life

sentence in formulating a PIP which is continually changing and progressing. This process should begin

at the very start of a person’s sentence (i.e. after sentencing/after any appeal process has been

concluded). The ISM Officer can act as a liaison to bring the person in to contact with the services

required to progress his/ her sentence. Currently, services such as Psychology, Probation, Addiction

and Education typically work within their own areas of expertise and do not consult sufficiently with

each other as to the work they are doing with a particular individual. Therefore, the work a person

serving a life sentence engages in can be disjointed and in some cases unnecessarily duplicated. The

role of the ISM Officer is to bring clarity to sentence planning and the person’s PIP, inform services of

current work being undertaken with each service and strive for the best outcome for the person in

question. A serious flaw in this process is that currently, the role of the ISM Officer within the prisons

is not ‘ring fenced’. In general, due to the contingencies of a particular prison e.g. staff shortages on

the day, the ISM Officer may not be assigned full time to their position. The ISM Officer is quite often

utilised for general prison duties thus eroding the potential of this vital position in sentence

management for people serving life sentences.

5.3 Problems with Parole Board process

In its meetings with people serving life sentences, the Committee was told of problems they

experienced with the operation of the Parole Board.

5.3.1 Delays

A significant issue was delay in the consideration of cases by the Parole Board. There was a

general view that people serving life sentences waited too long between Parole Board Reviews

and that timelines were not adhered to. In many cases, people in prison were informed that

these delays arose from reports from service providers being submitted late i.e. from the

Probation Service, Psychology Service, Governor reports as well as reports from the PRC.

Another source of delay was in arranging interviews between the person serving the life

sentence and members of the Parole Board. When the dossiers were sent to the person

serving a life sentence prior to the interview with members of the Board, it was often the case

that the reports on file were a year out of date.

There were also concerns about delays which arose after the Board had considered their

cases. The resulting decision of the Minister, based on the Board’s recommendations, was

sometimes sent months following the interview.

5.3.2 Lack of clarity in recommendations

Another significant issue raised was the perceived lack of clarity in the Minister’s decision

letter regarding the future management of their sentences. The Parole Board’s

30

recommendations, which were viewed to be generally replicated in the Minister’s decision

letter, lacked clarity and specificity in relation to things like structured temporary release

programmes, more neutral venue visits to meet with family, educational programmes and so

on.

The general view was that the Parole Board recommendations should have a longer term view

in terms of the person’s progression though the prison system, with a steadily declining

security status of the institution in which they were serving their sentence i.e. from high

security to medium security to Open Centre and then to release.

Recommendations should also be clearer on pre-release rehabilitative measures. At the very

least, people at the latter end of the custodial part of their life sentence should know how to

shop and to cook for themselves when they are eventually released from prison and be better

able to maintain family relationships.

5.3.3 Lack of clarity regarding responsibility for transfers/temporary release

A general view expressed by the people serving life sentences interviewed by the Committee

was that if the Minister agreed to a recommendation that a person serving a life sentence be

sent to an Open Centre, then it should be within the power of the IPS to grant TR as it saw fit.

Some saw it as incongruous that people serving determinate sentences in Open Centres were

granted regular TR for the purposes of re-socialisation while people serving life sentences who

were incarcerated beside them were not able to avail of TR unless on the specific authority of

the Minister. It was also not clear to the people interviewed as to the level of discretion

available to the Operations Directorate of the IPS when considering applications for TR and

other rehabilitative measures for people serving life sentences both in closed prisons and

Open Centres. People serving life sentences were unclear as to who had the decision making

authority in this -the Governor, the IPS, the Parole Board or the Minister?

5.3.4 Static reports

One person serving a life sentence noted that the Garda report for the Parole Board dossier

was invariably negative. It was informed solely by what the Gardaí knew of the crime and the

state of mind of the person when s/he was committing the offence, and not by his state of

mind now, having served a number of years in prison and having engaged with rehabilitative

services. Here the benefit of more dynamic assessments as provided by prison based services

was endorsed.

5.3.5 Independent Parole Board

All people serving life sentences interviewed by the Committee favoured an independent

Parole Board. Many believed that the process was too politically driven and that this impacted

on the recommendations by the Parole Board to the Minister.

5.3.6 Parole Board Liaison

Each prison has a nominated Parole Board Liaison Officer. The role of the Liaison Officer is to

act as a communication conduit between the Parole Board and the prison and between the

Parole Board and the person engaged with the Parole Board. This initiative is to prevent

miscommunication and duplication of information between the Parole Board and the prison

/ person in prison. There is a clear need to re-invigorate the Parole Board Liaison initiative.

This initiative has proven extremely positive for all those involved in the Parole Board process

31

when operated correctly. An example of this might be where delays experienced during the

Parole Board process would be communicated to the Parole Board Liaison Officer who can

then communicate and explain these to the person in prison, eliminating uncertainty and

reducing frustration of the process.

5.4 Specific challenges for certain sub groups

5.4.1 Nature of the Offence

There are some people serving life sentences, who, by the nature of their offence, may not be

able to benefit from the overall sentence management model proposed in this report. These

individuals may be restricted to certain locations for the duration of their sentence and may

not be able to transfer to Open Centres for good order and public safety reasons. In such cases

resocialisation and reintegration plans are limited to what can be managed by the IPS.

5.4.2 Females serving life sentences

At present, females serving a life sentence can only be accommodated in either the Dóchas

Centre (Mountjoy Complex) or the female section of Limerick Prison. It is noted that the IPS is

considering expressions of interest regarding the establishment of a Step Down unit for

women in Dublin.

5.4.3. Foreign Nationals serving life sentences

As noted in Chapter 3, Sections 3.8 and 3.9, foreign nationals who are serving a life sentence

report significant difficulties in progressing from closed to open regimes, and eventual release

due to lack of legislation on the matter. Prison services also aired frustrations at their lack of

ability to make progressive recommendations for foreign nationals involved in the Parole

Board process. Difficulties with legislation regarding the removal or deportation of prisoners

was noted.

5.5 Pre and post release sentence planning

5.5.1 Transferring to an Open Centre

Consideration needs to be given to the alignment between expectations held on what open

centres can offer and the reality of what can be achieved, given reduced staffing levels, lower

concentration of therapeutic services and, at times, the limitations of the regime available.

Persons interviewed, who recently transferred from a closed to an open prison, were asked

of their experience and if the reality of the open centre matched their expectations. Issues

identified included, having to make decisions for oneself, having to learn to mix with people

and generally finding the adjustment difficult. Suggestions to support the transfer included

enabling the person to visit the open centre and to meet with the Governor and services,

offering greater help in learning to do basic life skills for themselves and the possibility of

having purpose built independent living units to replicate life outside of prison to a greater

extent.

Issues have also arisen in cases involving applications/decisions for transfer of a person with

a sexual component to an offence, or with a historic conviction for a sexual offence and

32

whether such prisoners are suitable for an open centre environment. It is clear this is not a

straightforward issue and that it requires the full and thorough assessment of the prisoner by

operational staff and therapeutic services who then make recommendations to the Parole

Board and in turn the Tánaiste.

5.5.2 Clarity in Temporary Release recommendations

Persons interviewed by the Committee who had been approved a transfer to an Open Centre,

interpreted this as being the start of a release process and a related escalating programme of

TR. In many cases this was not the experienced reality as the Ministerial decision, usually

based upon a recommendation by the Parole Board, did not specifically indicated the

possibility of TR, or did not outline the form and frequency such TR might take. People

expressed frustration at being considered low enough risk to be detained in an Open Centre

environment, which has limited perimeter security, yet not deemed suitable to leave the

centre on TR. This frustration was not only felt on the part of the individual serving a life

sentence, but also the Governor and staff who assist people serving life sentences in

preparation for eventual full TR.

5.5.3 Need for increase in life skills training

Some people interviewed who had spent in excess of 20 years in custody acknowledged the

need to improve their independent living skills, life and social skills and ability to take

responsibility for themselves. Many acknowledged elements of institutionalisation, isolation

from family or friends and the fear of not being able to cope once released. They suggested

that this form of rehabilitative planning was not sufficiently available or coordinated at the

current time.

33

6 Recommended model of Best Practice and General Recommendations

6.1 Proposed Model for the Sentence Management of people serving life sentences

The need for a clear, consistent and transparent model for sentence management has been

articulated by all stakeholders met throughout the Committee’s lifespan. Based on that

feedback and building on the best practice already carried out within the prison estate, the

following model is recommended for adoption within the Irish Prison Service:

6.1.1 Committal Orientation

Prisoners should be provided with a detailed understanding of the complete prison environment on committal. This should be formalised for persons serving life sentences and possibly structured on a peer led model.

6.1.2 Multi-Disciplinary Assessment

An assessment of each person serving a life sentence will be completed following the person

being sentenced. The assessment will consider the risks, needs and strengths (SNR) of the

individual, drawing on specific SNR assessments from IPS Psychology, the Probation Service

and the wealth of disciplines within the prisons, e.g. education, health, work/training,

addictions. This should not be deferred should the prisoner appeal his/her sentence, but

cognisance taken of that fact. As such it may be necessary to conduct a further/continued

assessment, focused on the offence, once any appeal process has been finalised. The person

serving the life sentence, and their families3 should be encouraged and given the opportunity

to be involved in the development and planning of their sentence management.

6.1.3 Annual Review Prison based, Governor-led multi-disciplinary (MDT) reviews should be convened, with each

person’s case being reviewed at least annually. On completion of the assessment, it should

be put forward for the next MDT review for discussion. These MDT meetings should facilitate

the attendance of the person serving a life sentence and if possible, input from his or her

family/significant other where deemed appropriate.

The purpose of the meeting is to agree a Personal Implementation Plan for the following

twelve months. This meeting should be repeated on an annual basis with ongoing reviews

completed during the year. The meeting should cover the following:

a) feedback to the person serving a life sentence regarding his/her behaviour and attitude over the previous year;

b) positive use of time – work, training and other options; c) engagement with relevant therapeutic services; d) offence focused work (when deemed appropriate); e) feedback from the individual themselves including their views, aspirations, and any

challenges they may be facing; f) feedback from family/significant other options.

3 It is noted that the prisoner’s consent would be required.

34

6.1.4 Parole Board

The Annual Review and Personal Implementation Plan will be used to guide and manage the

person’s motivation and engagement up until, and throughout the person’s engagement with

the Parole Board. The Personal Implementation Plan should be used to inform prison based

reports submitted to the Parole Board, particularly the Prison Review Committee (PRC) report.

Additionally, the Personal Implementation Plan is to be adjusted to incorporate any decision

of the Minister and through engagement and agreement with the person serving a life

sentence4.

6.1.5 Integrated Sentence Management: Integrated Sentence Management is the

cornerstone on which to develop the above model for sentence management of persons

sentenced to life imprisonment. As such it is necessary to enable ISM Officers to engage with

prisoners to formulate and drive each Personal Implementation Plan. To achieve this, ISM

Officers must be dedicated to their roles, not reassigned to other duties and must be of an

adequate number to effectively perform this function in addition to their existing and

expanding role.

6.1.6 Rehabilitative measures: Whilst excellent rehabilitative measures (group and

individual) are taking place in various prisons by Education, Psychology, Probation, Merchants

Quay Ireland, IASIO (e.g. Living with Life group based psychoeducation programme and the

Building Better Lives violence programme) they tend to be ad hoc and not estate wide. The

Committee supports the IPS Strategic action around national and local Heads of Service

meeting to discuss and agree a coherent and coordinated approach to rehabilitation across

the estate, chaired by th